SECOND DIVISION
[G. R. No. 131203.
August 2, 2001]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GUILLERMO CARIÑO, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
In its decision promulgated on
August 25, 1997,[1] the Regional Trial Court of Echague, Isabela, Branch
24, in Criminal Case No. Br 24-0483, found accused-appellant Guillermo Cariño
guilty of rape as defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code. Appellant was first sentenced to death, but this penalty was reduced to reclusion
perpetua in an order of the court a quo dated September 10, 1997,
after a post-promulgation review of its decision wherein it was noted that the
rape happened in 1990 or before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659, which
restored the death penalty for heinous crimes.
The trial court then motu proprio amended the dispositive portion
of the original decision by reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua.[2]
The facts of the case are as
follows:
On October 24, 1995, appellant was
charged with rape, allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the month of January, 1990, in the municipality of Jones, province of Isabela, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, intimidation and lewd designs have (sic) carnal knowledge with one Mary Ann V. Cariño, against the latter’s will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
On arraignment, appellant with
assistance of counsel pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, trial on
the merits ensued.
The prosecution’s evidence
consisted of the medical certificate Exh. “A” issued by Dr. Marites Dalmacio,[4] and the testimonies of private complainant Maryann
Cariño, her aunts Virgielyn Juan and Siony Cariño, her father Tito Cariño.
The defense offered in evidence
the lone testimony of the accused.
Records show that private
complainant is appellant’s granddaughter, the daughter of his son Tito. Her
mother died a week after her birth on September 12, 1977.[5] Tito remarried thereafter, and had four children by
his second wife.[6]
At the time of the alleged
offense, in January 1990, Maryann was 13 years old and a Grade 3 pupil. With
her stepbrothers, stepsisters and grandfather she lived with her father in San
Vicente, Jones, Isabela. As the eldest child, she looked after her younger
siblings since Tito and his second wife were usually at their kaingin in
the forest of Cama, San Vicente. They
returned home only on Sundays.
Tito’s house in San Vicente was
made of cogon and bamboo. Its floor was
raised one (1) meter from the ground. Near the house was a smaller hut, where
appellant stayed. Tito had four (4)
nearby neighbors, one of them his sister, Virgielyn Juan, whose house was only
ten (10) meters away.
Sometime in January 1990, at
around 11:00 P.M., while her parents were in Sitio Cama and while her siblings
were asleep, appellant armed with a foot-long knife[7] entered the room where Maryann was sleeping. He woke
her up and told her he was going to “use her” (“imbagana gamitin nac”),[8] threatening her that if she refused, he was going to
kill her (“Okinnam, sige ket patayin ka”).[9] Frightened, Maryann allowed him to do as he pleased.
Appellant went on top of the
victim and after caressing her, he succeeded in inserting his stiff penis
inside her vagina. He then stayed on
top of her for almost an hour and after satisfying his lust dismounted her and
left.[10]
That same night, the victim’s aunt
Virgielyn heard what sounded like Maryann weeping. Virgielyn woke up her
sister-in-law, Siony, who was staying for the night. They went to Tito’s house.
Noiselessly, they crept beneath the floor and eavesdropped. They heard
appellant telling Maryann to remove her panty (“Ikkatemon ta sapin mon.”). [11] He threatened to kill her if she refused. They also
heard a bolo being unsheathed.[12] Virgielyn and Siony, afraid, kept absolutely still.
The victim pleaded with appellant to “remove it as it was painful” (“Araroy
co, Lolo, ikkatemon ta nasaket.”)[13] He replied “Why should I remove it when I am not yet
through?” Appellant then flatly stated
“If you are going to report it, I will kill you” (“No ipulong mo uray
siasino patayen ca.”)[14] Virgielyn and Siony then left. They did not reveal
what they had overheard to anyone. Both
were deathly afraid of appellant who had been previously jailed for having
killed his brother and a nephew.[15]
From then on, appellant had his
way with complainant, having sexual intercourse with her whenever he wanted.[16] Maryann did not resist or shout for help when she was
sexually abused. She was terrified of her grandfather’s death threats. Fearful
for her life as well as those of her family members, she did not reveal her
harrowing experience to anyone.[17]
In 1995, when Maryann could not
endure her ordeal anymore, she told her father that appellant raped her.
On September 11, 1995, she filed a
complaint for rape with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Jones-San Agustin,
Isabela.[18] She underwent a medical examination. The examining
physician found no lacerations in her hymen, but noted that she had a “ruptured
hymen.”[19] Finding
probable cause to hold appellant for the rape charge, the municipal judge
ordered his arrest and the filing of the proper information against him before
the Regional Trial Court.
On March 10, 1997, after the
prosecution had presented its evidence, appellant with leave of court filed a
motion to dismiss on demurrer to evidence[20] on the ground that material inconsistencies and
discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses raised reasonable
doubt concerning appellant’s probable guilt.
On March 24, 1997, the trial court
denied appellant’s motion and ordered the defense to present its evidence.
On the witness stand, appellant
denied raping private complainant.[21] He professed ignorance why his own granddaughter
would accuse him of such a crime. He
claimed that he was seventy (70) years old and no longer capable of having an
erection.[22]
After trial, the court rendered
judgment as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused GUILLERMO CARIÑO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE with which he is charged with the use of deadly weapon attended with the aggravating circumstance of relationship, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to indemnify the victim Maryann Cariño P100,000.00 moral damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SO ORDERED.[23]
Hence this appeal, with appellant
assigning the following errors:
I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
II
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCONSISTENT AND UNBELIEVABLE TESTIMONIES OF THE
WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION.[24]
Both assigned errors involve the
issue of credibility of witnesses and shall be jointly discussed.
At the outset, appellant asks us
to note that even the trial court noted inconsistencies in private
complainant’s testimony, to wit:
x x x
To be sure, there are some contradictions in the testimony of
Maryann. For instance, she declared that the first sexual intercourse with the
accused was done inside the house, only to change it later and say that it was
done inside the hut in front of the house.
Then she said that the first sexual intercourse was done at night only
to change it later on and say that it was done at daytime.[25]
x x x
Appellant contends that it was
error for the trial court to believe the victim’s story despite these
inconsistencies. He argues that mere passage of time is insufficient to account
for such inconsistencies regarding time and place of the alleged rape because
what she was being asked to recall was only the approximate time. Her inconsistencies put into serious doubt
her credibility.
For the State, the Office of the
Solicitor General admits that the victim indeed committed minor inconsistencies
in narrating the details of where and when she was raped. However, according to the OSG, such lapses
are understandable when a person is asked to recount details she considers too
painful to recall.
In rape cases, we note that the
only persons present during a rape are usually only the offender and the
offended. While the lone testimony of the victim is sufficient to convict the
accused, her testimony must be clear, positive, convincing, and consistent with
human nature and the normal course of things.
In the present case, in our view,
the perceived discrepancies in the testimony of Maryann concerning when and
where she was raped do not destroy her credibility as complaining witness, much
less vitiate the evidentiary value of said testimony. Inconsistencies of this
nature can be expected of a young girl whose ravishment she is called upon to
recall painfully. Rape victims hardly retain in their memories the dates,
number of times, and manner of their ravishment. For this reason the exact time
and date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the
crime.[26] The victim in the present case only finished Grade 6.[27] But despite her educational limitations, her
narration of her ordeal on the witness stand was straightforward, spontaneous
and candid. Under rigid cross-examination, she was steadfast on her tragic tale
of defilement. Lapses concerning the
date, time, and place of the sexual assaults only tend to buttress, rather than
weaken her credibility, since they show that she was neither coached nor were
her answers contrived.[28] Besides, no motive has been attributed to her that
would make her testify falsely against the accused.[29] Note that her alleged rapist was her own
grandfather. A rape victim’s testimony
is entitled to great weight when she accuses a blood relative of having raped
her.[30] Note finally that Maryann cried as she narrated her
ravishment at her grandfather’s hands.[31] The crying of the victim during her testimony is
added hallmark of the credibility of the rape charge.[32]
Appellant next assails Maryann’s
failure to report immediately the alleged rape and the successive acts of
sexual abuse that allegedly followed. He claims her silence for some sixty (60)
months is inconsistent with the natural reaction of an outraged victim. Her long silence creates room for doubt on
the veracity of her story, according to him.
The OSG, however, points out that
Maryann’s silence is not unusual among young victims of rape, considering that
she was overwhelmed by fear. Young girls like Maryann often conceal the assaults
on their virtue, out of shame, humiliation and social ostracism but their
initial reluctance in reporting their rape is neither unknown nor uncommon.[33] Their vacillation in filing charges does not
undermine their credibility if the delay can be satisfactorily explained.[34]
Moreover, Maryann was not unaware
that her ravisher had been jailed for killing blood relatives. She had reason
to fear and not to ignore his mortal threats. Delay in reporting a rape in the
face of threats of death or physical violence should not be taken against the
victim.[35]
Appellant also faults the
testimonies of the prosecution’s corroborative witnesses as highly incredulous
and unworthy of belief. He insists it
is contrary to human experience that Virgielyn and Siony did not rush to the
victim’s aid nor report the incident to the police when they heard her being
raped. Their testimonies then are
suspect as fabrications, according to him.
The OSG points out, however, that
nowhere was it shown that the victim’s father and two aunts were motivated by
improper motives enough to falsely accuse their own kin of a crime so serious
and despicable. They were only motivated by their sense of justice for a
wronged kin.
We find Virgielyn and Siony’s
testimonies credible. It is not rare for witnesses to delay reporting a crime
and the delay, if adequately explained, does not destroy their credibility.[36] We are convinced Virgielyn and Siony were indeed held
back in terror because of appellant’s violent reputation. They could not ignore the possibility of
reprisals should they aid the victim.[37] Even the victim’s father admitted in open court his
fear of appellant, as the latter was capable of carrying out any threat he
might make.[38] Death threats and fear of reprisals are adequate
reasons why witnesses are reluctant to get involved in criminal cases.[39]
Noteworthy, corroborative
testimonies of witnesses in this case are mere icing on the cake. The peculiar nature of rape is that
conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely upon private complainant’s word.[40] Her accusations are supported by her credible,
pertinent, and material testimony.
The gravamen of rape is carnal
knowledge of a woman against her will or without her consent.[41] Appellant failed to rebut private complainant’s
categorical testimony that he was able to ravish her by holding a bladed
weapon, with threats to kill her. The
act of holding a knife by itself is strongly suggestive of force and
threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring a woman, much more a
young and naïve barrio lass, to submission.[42] Against
Maryann’s positive declaration, all he can offer is mere self-serving denial.
Denial is an inherently weak defense, which cannot prevail over the positive
testimony of private complainant.[43] Hence, his appeal must fail for sheer want of merit.
Appellant is the grandfather of
the victim. Under the Revised Penal Code, the alternative circumstance of
relationship is considered “when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant,
descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by
affinity in the same degrees of the offender.”[44] The relationship between appellant and private
complainant is especially aggravating circumstance in this case.
Some modifications in the monetary
awards are in order. The trial court did not award any civil indemnity which
current jurisprudence has fixed at P50,000.00.[45] Accordingly, appellant is further sentenced to
indemnify private complainant in the amount of P50,000.00 for the rape he
committed against her. We however
reduce the moral damages of P100,000.00 to P50,000.00, conformably with
prevailing jurisprudence. The
alternative circumstance of relationship having aggravated the offense, the
award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is in order.[46]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding
GUILLERMO CARIÑO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that he is also sentenced to
pay complainant Maryann Cariño the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Costs against
appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Acting Chief
Justice), (Chairman), Mendoza, (Acting Chairman), and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Buena J., (on official leave).
[1] Rollo, pp.
12-17.
[2] Id. at 18-19.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4] Id. at 3.
[5] Id. at
4. See also Exh. “1” and “1-a”.
[6] TSN, October 24,
1996, pp. 6-7.
[7] Id. at 11.
[8] Id. at 9.
[9] Id. at 10;
TSN, January 7, 1997, p. 3.
[10] TSN, January 7,
1997, pp. 4-8.
[11] TSN, January 23,
1997, pp. 17-19; TSN, February 4, 1997, pp. 5-7.
[12] Id. at 20,
24-25; Id. at 9.
[13] Id. at 20; Id.
at 7.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Id. at 21-23;
TSN, February 4, 1997, p. 9.
[16] TSN, January 7,
1997, p. 7.
[17] Id. at 13.
[18] Records, p. 2.
[19] Id. at 3.
[20] Id. at
89-101.
[21] TSN, June 25, 1997,
pp. 4-5.
[23] Rollo, pp.
18-19.
[24] Id. at 41.
[25] Id. at 16.
[26] People v.
Alvero, 329 SCRA 737, 747 (2000), citing People v. Bernaldez, 294 SCRA
317, 327 (1998).
[27] TSN, January 7,
1997, p. 11.
[28] People v. Sancha,
324 SCRA 646, 654 (2000), citing People v. Calayca, 301 SCRA 192, 200
(1999).
[29] People v.
Ramos, 330 SCRA 453, 458 (2000), citing People v. Escala, 292 SCRA 48,
59 (1998).
[30] People v.
Razonable, 330 SCRA 562, 574 (2000), citing People v. Sevilla, 320 SCRA
107, 120 (1999).
[31] TSN, October 24,
1996, p. 10; TSN, January 7, 1997, p. 5.
[32] People v.
Bea, Jr., 306 SCRA 653, 659 (1999), citing People v. Gecomo, 254 SCRA
82, 96 (1996).
[33] People v.
Cabana, 331 SCRA 569, 581 (2000), citing People v. Montefalcon, 243 SCRA
617, 624 (1995).
[34] People v.
Mitra, 328 SCRA 774, 789 (2000).
[35] People v.
Cabingas, et al., 329 SCRA 21, 30 (2000), citing People v. Melivo, 253
SCRA 347, 356 (1996).
[36] People v.
Padao, 267 SCRA 64, 76 (1997).
[37] TSN, January 23, 1997,
pp. 22-23; TSN, February 4, 1997, pp. 9, 13-14.
[38] TSN, February 6,
1997, pp. 5-6, 10.
[39] People v.
Leoterio, 264 SCRA 608, 615 (1996); People v. Castillo, 261 SCRA 493,
500-501 (1996).
[40] People v.
Baltazar, 329 SCRA 378, 386 (2000), citing People v. Alitagtag, 309 SCRA
325, 335 (1999).
[41] People v.
Reyes, 315 SCRA 563, 577 (1999), citing People v. Igat, 291 SCRA 100,
107-108 (1998).
[42] People v.
Reynaldo, 291 SCRA 701, 713-714 (1998).
[43] People v.
Fraga, 330 SCRA 669, 688 (2000).
[44] Rev. Penal
Code, Art. 15.
[45] People v.
Sabredo, 331 SCRA 663, 672 (2000).
[46] Civil Code, Art.
2230.